The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1887-05-10

{" To avoid improper influences which |
may result from. intermixing in one and
the same Act such things as have no
proper relation to each other, every law
shall embrace but one object, and that
shall be expressed in its title" A like
article is found in the Constitutions of a
majority of the States of the American
Union, some of them using the term zone
subject" and some lone object" The pur-
pose of this provision is first to prevent
hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation
second, to prevent surprise or fraud upon
the Legislature by means of provisions
in bills of which these titles give no in
timation, and third to approve the people
Of proposed matters of legislation. See
Cooley's Court Limitations, page 143.
1t is clear that the title in the present
case is misleading and would Illustrate
the second and third objects above pro-
posed It is declared by this title that
the law intended to be amended is one
relating to import duties upon wines,
and, inferentially, upon wines only.
When the Act is read by its title, this
matter is what is presented to the at
tention of the Legislature. Without the
words, relating to import duties upon
wines,'' the title describes an Act
amending a specified Act of 1878 what
ever subject may be included in it, but
these words being added must be con-
sidered to restrict the scope of the Act
and of the amendment. Says Cooley at
page 149 of the work cited above: ''The
Courts cannot enlarge the scope of the
title; they are vested with no dispens-
ing power; the constitution has made
the title the conclusive index to the
legislative index as to what shall have
operation; it is no answer to say that
the title might have been made more
comprehensive, if in fact the Legisla-
ture have not seen fit to make it So"
The error in this title is not in it's IN
Sufficiency. AS an amendatory Act it
might be considered sufficient if it only
referred to an original Act having title
properly describing the subject matter.
See State VS.. Ransom, 70 Mo-, 70, re-
ferred to at page 153 of U. S. Digest, new
series, vol. 13. In the case before us
the title goes beyond such reference and
wrongly describes the Act referred to
and the matter amended.
The Act being broader than the title
does not, however, render the Act I'M
constitutional as to the subject ex-
pressed in the title, when that is sepa-
rable from matters which are extra the
title.
Cooley's Court Linn, page 14S.
Re Metropolitan Gas Light Co., IS N.
Y, 526. Dashurst VS.. Allegheny City,
90 Pa. St., 437.
The Act is good as to the duties men
toned upon wines. 1t is unconstitu-
tional in respect to the added duty on
cigars and cheroots. The plaintiffs con-
tention being sustained, we order judg
the agreed statement.
L. MCCULLY.
EDWARD PRESTON.
RIcH'D. F. BIcKERToN.
F. M. Hatch for plaintiffs, A. P.
Peterson for defendant.
VIM. G.. Parke and Jono. Austin, as
signees of the estate of Y Amin,
bankrupt, vs.. S. Selig, administrator of
the estate of Amin and Ahuna. The de-.
cision of the Court is as follows:
We are of opinion that the admins
traitor of the estate of Ahuna is entitled
to retain the amount of the note,
$1,213 SO, and that the assignees of
Amin are entitled only to the balance.
L. MCCULLY.
EDWARD Preston.
RIcH'D. F. BrcKERToN